IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Marsha D. Auflick,

Plaintiff Civil Action 2:12-cv-00029

v. Judge Frost

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner 

of Social Security, Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Commissioner's October 9, 2012 objections

(ECF No. 19) to Magistrate Judge Abel's September 24, 2012 Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 18). The Court, having reviewed the record de novo,

determines that this case should be remanded to properly evaluate the medical source

opinions of Dr. North and the state agency physicians under the legal criteria set forth

in the Commissioner’s Regulations and Rulings and as required by case law and to

properly consider plaintiff’s obesity in light of SSR 02-01p. The Court further finds for

the reasons set out below that the Commissioner's objections to the Report and

Recommendation are without merit.

The Commissioner's Objections. Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to set forth

any evidence that her excess weight imposed limitations that would preclude a reduced

range of sedentary work. Dr. North diagnosed plaintiff with weight gain rather than

Case: 2:12-cv-00029-GLF-MRA Doc #: 20 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
obesity, and he never prescribed weight loss as part of her treatment. Defendant

maintains that there is substantial evidence that plaintiff's weight did not cause

limitations beyond those identified by the administrative law judge. The administrative

law judge noted that plaintiff was able to perform many activities of daily living and

that there was no documentation of a gait disturbance. 

Defendant also argues that the administrative law judge provided a sufficient

rationale for rejecting the opinion of Dr. North on the basis that his extreme limitations

were not well supported. Defendant maintains that the administrative law judge

essentially attacked the consistency of Dr. North's opinion with the record evidence. As

a result, the Commissioner contends that remand is not warranted. 

Discussion. Here, the administrative law judge’s decision does not contain a

discussion of plaintiff’s obesity, and the administrative law judge failed to fully

evaluate her obesity in accordance with SSR 02-1p. The Ruling provides that an

assessment should be made to determine the effect obesity had on an individual's

ability to perform routine movement and physical activity within the work

environment. SSR 02-1p. An adjudicator must consider the impact of a claimant's

obesity on the claimant’s residual functional capacity, but the administrative law judge

failed to so. Because the administrative law judge failed to comply with the guidelines

for evaluating obesity as set forth in SSR 02-01p, this case is REMANDED.

The administrative law judge gave “very little weight” to the opinion of treating

physician Dr. North, finding that Dr. North provided no documentation or reasoning

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00029-GLF-MRA Doc #: 20 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
for his assessment that plaintiff is limited to less than 20 minutes of standing and

walking at one time and less than 30 minutes of sitting at one time. (PageID 75.)

Although the administrative law judge assigned “great” weight to the assessments of

the state agency physicians, Drs. McCloud and Teague, the administrative law judge

concluded that plaintiff could perform only sedentary work. Dr. McCloud, however,

opined that plaintiff could perform light work. By adopting some but not all of the

limitations found by Dr. McCloud, the administrative law judge failed to clearly

articulate the rationale underlying his decision. On remand, the administrative law

judge should clearly articulate his basis for rejecting Dr. North's opinion and articulate

what evidence he accepted or rejected when making his disability finding. 

Upon de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B), the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. This case is

REMANDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

UNTIED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00029-GLF-MRA Doc #: 20 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

Case: 2:12-cv-00029-GLF-MRA Doc #: 20 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>